Demand Sensible Gun Safety Regulations

In the State of the Union address, President Obama called for the enactment of sensible gun regulations. This should be the rallying cry for everyone concerned about gun violence across our nation.

In the State of the Union addressPresident Obama called for the enactment of sensible gun regulations.  This should be the rallying cry for everyone concerned about gun violence across our nation.

I am a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the 34th District because our representative does not vote for the values, the priorities, or the interests of this district.  In fact, she has an A rating and takes her lead from the NRA. In fact, just this week our delegate voted to ban the disclosure of information about concealed handgun permit holders. It’s time to for this to stop.

We must demand sensible gun safety regulations including universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and meaningful laws against gun trafficking. I support our second amendment rights, and believe these are solutions we can all support.

Gun safety is a personal issue for me. My brother was murdered by a robber using a handgun likely bought off the street. Thousands of other families across America have been victimized by gun violence.  We cannot be silent; we cannot stand on the sidelines. Act now. Let your voice be heard.  Contact our Virginia lawmakers.  Demand that they enact sensible gun regulations.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bob February 15, 2013 at 05:32 PM
I look at it from two angles - 1) again I say - chances of my being injured/killed by a firearm are very low compare to all the other ways I might be harmed. I don't believe in outlawing guns so that we "feel" safer but are not significantly safer and that is what I think is happening right now - a drive to "feel" safer. 2) Everyone has their "zombie apocalypse" scenario these days. I have a few in mind in which I would like to have significantly more firepower than the other guy. A country-wide Katrina/Sandy/Meteor type of thing - especially something that shut electricity down across the country or the East Coast for months (e.g., Carrinton Event of 1859). In that case - there would suddenly be a ton of people who really wish they had a powerful gun. But on that day - no one will be able to get one that doesn't already have one. And if your neighbor on your left has a handgun and your neighbor on your right has an AR15 - which person's livingroom would you rather camp out in? Call me paranoid but that I my right as an American - fostered by a trumped up "War on Terrorism" :)
Tyler Durden February 15, 2013 at 06:07 PM
1) A country-wide Katrina/Sandy/Meteor type of thing: Don't forget the most likely of all "zombie apocalypse" .... complete collapse of our economic system 2) my right as an American - fostered by a trumped up "War on Terrorism" I am absolutely amazed at how many people do not understand the "War on Terrorism" has morphed into "War on Americans".
Tyler Durden February 15, 2013 at 06:15 PM
"zombie apocalypse" scenario: "Massive Explosive Sonic Booms ..... Nature Magazine says that the blast was even more powerful than North Korea’s recent nuclear test" http://www.infowars.com/massive-explosive-sonic-booms-caught-on-camera/
P. Scott February 15, 2013 at 07:19 PM
I feel Comstock's votes on gun issues in lockstep with the NRA are not reflective of the 34th district. I gathered signatures on a gun reform petition last weekend in Great Falls. Some people signed; others did not. But everyone felt something needed to be done! They love Great Falls and they want to feel safe in the this community without having to arm themselves. The fear and paranoia that the head of the NRA, LaPierre (and by extension Comstock) promote is not wanted in Great Falls! Kathleen Murphy shows sensitivity and moderation to both sides of this issue and she is the right choice for delegate.
Rob Jackson February 15, 2013 at 08:31 PM
Kathleen Murphy is a dangerous candidate. She wants to disclose information about gun owners because she doesn't like guns. Yet, I cannot imagine she would support making information about men getting vasectomies or women getting abortions public. Why the difference? How about leaving people alone to make their decisions in private, be they about reproduction or gun ownership? The law should have a preference for privacy. And how about some of our good Democratic representatives who have A ratings from the NRA? I cannot imagine Ms. Murphy didn't vote for Mark Warner because he is a gun rights supporter. We need one set of rules folks. Not "heads, I win; tails you lose." There is something deep and dishonest here.
Tyler Durden February 15, 2013 at 08:39 PM
"There is something deep and dishonest here." -- The left never wants to talk about the facts and by proxy they are not being honest. As P. Scott stated, they want to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING because they think it will make them "feel" safer. Reality be dammed. If we are going to do something let's do something that will make a difference. Up to this point I have not heard any policy statements that would accomplish a nickel's worth of safety.
Jill Cook February 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM
Sadly, Ms Murphy has begun to define herself as one who will rely on divisive, inflammatory and, most importantly, misleading comments about her opponent to make a point. Barbara Comstock has a record of sensible solutions to many issues, of which gun control is just one. Ms. Murphy, however, seems to think “gun control” is a good excuse for invading the privacy of law-abiding Commonwealth citizens. Should this “disclosure” include the names of women who carry a firearm as protection against an abusive ex-husband? Is Murphy next going to demand that the Commonwealth release every citizen's tax returns? How about the personal details of everyone who applies for welfare benefits or visits a state health clinic? What is the legitimate purpose of releasing the names of Commonwealth citizens who are obeying the law and applying for a concealed carry permit? Perhaps Ms Murphy’s will explain at some point.
Tyler Durden February 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM
RE: "What is the legitimate purpose of releasing the names of Commonwealth citizens who are obeying the law " -Surely you know this is a tactic to try and "shame" law abiding citizens to succumb to their will. I too wonder why Mrs. Murphy posts such a statement then goes into hiding. Is she too good to engage the public directly.
Greg Brandon February 18, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Barbara Comstock's Republican friends on the House Militia, Police & Public Safety Comm. on a partisan vote (15 Reps voted Yea; 6 Dems voted Nay) held on Feb. 8, completely re-wrote Sen Mark Obenshain's (R) SB 1335. On Jan 29, Obenshain's original SB 1335 passed on a near-unanimous vote HOWEVER, his bill was to provide that "Upon receipt of a written request for confidentiality by a person protected by a protective order the [concealed weapon] permit shall withhold from public disclosure any information indicating the permit was issued to the protected person, including all personal identifying information contained in the protected person’s permit application." As an example, a woman who has a court-ordered protective order against her abusive ex-husband and possesses a concealed weapon permit because the details of the permit would not be publicly disclosed. Absolutely, we should do as much as we can to protect battered and abuse women. So, what happened when this "sensible gun safety regulations" reached the House? It was re-written so that anyone who has a concealed weapon permit does not have personal information revealed to the public. As currently enacted, § 18.2-308 requires that only the permit holder's SSN is withheld. In response to this partisan House amendment, SB 1335 went from "sensible" to controversial. This is a diversion from reaching consensus on reasonable gun violence prevention measures. Well played, House Republicans.
Greg Brandon February 18, 2013 at 02:14 AM
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Vice Chair on the Dranesville District Democratic Committee. Just so everyone knows, Jill Cook is the Chairman of the Dranesville Republican Committee. Given that the NRA and the Gun Owners of America are headquartered in Fairfax County, are there any employees of those two lobbying arms of the gun industry who are commenting in this thread and might might want to disclose something? It would be the proper thing to do. Might take a little courage, though.
Bob February 18, 2013 at 02:47 AM
Well, it took courage to admit this but I am paid $500k/year to seek out obscure blog posts that practically no one reads just so I can speak out against honest people trying to make the world a better place. Whew - glad I got that off my chest! Lol
Tyler Durden February 18, 2013 at 01:46 PM
Typical leftist, Saul Alensky tactics. If someone has a differing point of view they must be intimidated and shamed into compliance. The left cannot stand the fact that there are rational people that can make intelligent arguments defending their human rights, and protected rights under the constitution, without being paid. They just cannot handle it so they resort to radical intimidation tactics. Someone, anyone, name one mass murder that was a member of the NRA. I'm sure the left has looked long and hard for that person but to my knowledge that person does not exist. I am not a paid member of any pro 2nd Amendment organization. Is your position with the Democratic party a paid position? Might take some 'courage' to disclose that. People like you scare me.
Tyler Durden February 18, 2013 at 01:54 PM
RE: "anyone who has a concealed weapon permit does not have personal information revealed to the public" - Exactly as it should be.This would be an encroachment on my right to privacy. The only reason the radical left wants this information made public is to intimidate and shame legal gun owners into compliance with their radical world view.
Rob Jackson February 18, 2013 at 02:14 PM
Why is it any one's business who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon? We need more privacy in society today, not less. Publicizing information about gun owners is about an attempt to intimidate them or "shame" them. Owning a gun is a right held by most people, It's no different than someone else exercising their right to have a vasectomy or an abortion. You wouldn't want their names publicized. Nor would I. But now we have a candidate who wants to pick and chose what information is available. That is just plain scary. Kathleen Murphy is a dangerous radical, completely out of step with Fairfax County. Most people here respect their neighbor's privacy. She also attacked the integrity of her neighbors. In 2011, she didn't like the questions asked and not asked at the McLean Citizens Association's candidates' night, even though they were vetted by a representative of both parties and selected by Peggy Fox (except for the first set of candidates (state senate) that I handled until Peggy arrived. So she attacks the integrity of the MCA and me as its president at the time. We were never attacked by other candidates or their supporters - Dave Hunt, Margi Vanderhye, Pamela Danner, or Barbara Comstock. Agree or disagree with those candidates, they respected their neighbors. The current candidate of the Democratic Party does not.
Greg Brandon February 18, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Yea, sure, a local party committee member a paid position. Laughable. There is a big difference between *personal identifying information shall not be withheld from public disclosure* and publicizing the names of concealed weapons permit holders. Why are you jumping to conclusions about this issue? Frankly, the marketing departments of the NRA and GOA should welcome the publicly available knowledge of gun ownership. Rob, Rob, Rob. Kathleen Murphy is hardly evil. Nor is she a dangerous radical. In fact, I happen to know that before Newtown, she wanted to reach out to NRA leadership to find common ground. This is true! I suggested to her that the NRA might not be open to common ground finding. Their post-Newtown behavior supports my opinion. Kathleen Murphy has the full support of members of the local Democratic Committee. They are your neighbors and they believe Kathleen is an excellent candidate to unseat Barbara Comstock. We are not evil or radical, Rob. We're just Democrats.
Tyler Durden February 18, 2013 at 03:45 PM
RE: "Yea, sure, a local party committee member a paid position. Laughable." Very condescending but I would not expect anything more from a Democratic. I note that you directed the bulk of your response to Rob by name, so you concede on my arguments?
Bob February 18, 2013 at 03:49 PM
Rob - as someone who does not want any more stringent restrictions on firearms than exist already I can agree with your comments until this sentence: "It's no different than someone else exercising their right to have a vasectomy or an abortion." There is no point in having a discussion if people can't be objective. There is clearly a material difference between one of your neighbors walking around with a gat under their jacket and their having gotten a vasectomy. I understand that the former can be of concern. But here is what I ask of the people who are concerned... stop letting crime dramas, Nancy Grace, and the 24 hour news cycle form your opinion of the world because you will fear EVERYTHING that is not completely familiar. Rely on statistics to make informed decisions rather than fear. Also - if you go and look at YouTube postings by people demonstrating various firearms (and there are a lot of them) you will find people who seem exceptionally sober and measured - not crazy monster truck driving Cooters from Dukes of Hazzard.
Tyler Durden February 18, 2013 at 03:54 PM
RE: "FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Vice Chair on the Dranesville District Democratic Committee." Oh I get it now. Murphy will not engage the public directly, even after posting here, so she sends our her henchmen. She must see us as the unwashed masses of which she could never speak to as we are but mere proletarians yet she wants to rule over us. She can't even defend her own blog post; pathetic!
Bob February 18, 2013 at 04:02 PM
Hmmm... you said there is a difference between "not be withheld and publicizing" and I agree. Are you not familiar with what happened in NY with the publishing of every single person's name and address who had a concealed weapons permit? So Virginia very prudently reacted. And you want to know why? Because either for increasing news circulation or for publish shaming reasons, the genie is out of the bottle on what is going to happen with this information. Look at what is happening in Maine. Another newspaper trying to do the same thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/maine-uproar-over-request-for-gun-permit-data.html?ref=firearms&_r=0
Bob February 18, 2013 at 04:04 PM
btw - when I say "every single person" - it was within a limited area of NY - not the whole state. As I said earlier - it included High Ridge Rd Yorktown Heights, NY which happens to be where my non-permit-holder friend lives.
Rob Jackson February 18, 2013 at 04:14 PM
Greg, Kathleen Murphy is dangerous and seemingly dishonest. Murphy states "she [Comstock] has an A rating and takes her lead from the NRA." Well, Senator Mark Warner also has an A rating from the NRA. Source: WaPo. How does Candidate Murphy feel about our senior senator? Either an A rating is a fair campaign issue or it's not. Would Murphy support a primary challenge to Warner since he's a Second Amendment supporter? Of course not. It's only wrong for a GOP candidate to have an A rating. "There is a big difference between *personal identifying information shall not be withheld from public disclosure* and publicizing the names of concealed weapons permit holders. Why are you jumping to conclusions about this issue?" GIve me a break. If personal identifying information is available about gun owners, concealed permit holders, vasectomy patients, abortion patients, what stops someone from publicizing it? Absolutely nothing. This is playing games. Privacy is important in all aspects of life. If you can get information about someone owning guns, you can publish it in the paper, on the Internet, on the radio. You can picket their homes. You can harass them at work. You can break into their homes. It's clear Candidate Murphy doesn't like guns, doesn't like gun owners and wants to make personal information about them public. It's important to protect the privacy rights of even those we disagree with, IMO.
T Ailshire February 18, 2013 at 07:40 PM
I am truly sorry for your loss. However, while I sympathize with the loss of your brother, I ask that you please explain how any of the current proposals would have prevented a *criminal* from obtaining and using a handgun in the commission of a violent crime. None of the proposals I've seen in the past few months address the fact that criminals don't submit to background checks, and they don't obtain concealed-handgun permits. In fact, they sometimes STEAL firearms from those law-abiding citizens whose names and addresses are published by some do-gooder who thinks s/he has a "right" to know what personal property I own. I caution you -- northern Virginians who have put on their blinders and run primarily on platforms calling for more control of law-abiding citizens have not done well. I hope you have more to contribute than attempting to turn positives into negatives..
Kris Gregory February 18, 2013 at 10:38 PM
I'd like to support Kathleen Murphy's sensible position on gun violence prevention. Here are statistics from the Virginia State Police based on the 100,000 guns recovered by 200 police departments in the Commonwealth between 1993 to August 2010. More than 14,000 of these 100,000 guns recovered by various Commonwealth police departments during a wide range of investigations had high-capacity magazines. In 1998 a noticeable drop in the number of guns recovered by police departments began in the Commonwealth, and it continued with 2004 being the year with the lowest number of guns recovered (9%) during that period. Then it started increasing again reaching the highest number (20%) in 2010. In 1997, 944 handguns were seized with large capacity magazines. In 2004, 452 handguns were seized with large capacity magazines. In 2009, the last full year for which the Virginia state police had data, 986 handguns with large capacity magazines were seized. My source is the Washington Post article on January 13, 2013, titled "High-capacity magazines saw drop during ban, data indicate". By definition the police investigate people who break the law, not law-abiding citizens who hunt, target shoot, or are responsible gun owners. Remember, we lost 2 excellent police officers here in Fairfax County at the Sully police sub-station because their murderer had an assault weapon and even the fastest police sharpshooter in the world can't respond as quickly.
T Ailshire February 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Hmmm. You bring up two unrelated points. Of course there was a drop; larger-capacity magazines were illegal to manufacture/purchase from 1994-2004. To have any significance, this statistic would have to be accompanied by crime-rate statistics. "Recovered" tells us NOTHING about how/why these firearms were involved in the investigation. Second, you point out the 2006 shooting, which is irrelevant to current proposals. How would any of the recently proposed laws would have stopped the shooter at the Sully station -- an 18-year-old with several (also quoting the Washington Post) firearms on his person?
Bob February 18, 2013 at 11:10 PM
Seizures of guns with high capacity magazines... Not sure what conclusion can be drawn from that other than that there were seizures of guns with high capacity magazines. As far as Sully station goes - that was a horrible incident.
mary comerford February 19, 2013 at 07:27 PM
GOP Del. Barbara Comstock supports unlimited sales of handguns and supports allowing concealed weapons in bars and cars. We deserve better representation.
Tyler Durden February 19, 2013 at 07:40 PM
So the Constitution be dammed, as long as it is dammed to your likening. That is called fascism. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Take note of "SHALL not be infringed". Your comments most definitely infringe upon my right to protect myself and my family regardless of where I am or how many firearms can be purchased by any law abiding citizen.
T Ailshire February 19, 2013 at 07:47 PM
Unfortunately, too many believe "something needed to be done" - EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. "Do something" is not always the right answer. I can't comment on your petition, as I didn't see it, but none of the proposals I have seen so far would have done a thing to stop Aurora, VT, or Newtown assailants. The answer is not to hogtie those who didn't do it.
Rick Nagel February 20, 2013 at 06:11 AM
To the Editor: I have been following the blog and most recently the letter to the editor regarding Kathleen Murphy’s blog advocating sensible gun safety regulations, including universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and penalties for gun trafficking. This was a measured and responsible call for action on serious issues. Her comment on the recent disclosure legislation I believe was in line with concerns we all share over gun safety, no matter how hard others try to skew her words. I would like to point out that our current Delegate, Barbara Comstock votes the NRA line and has their A rating, which is great for the NRA but bad for the safety of our families. I strongly believe that Kathleen Murphy will be a great advocate for our community and am eager to support her campaign for Virginia House of Delegates.
Tyler Durden February 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM
You Murphy folks seem to be working from the same talking points. I especially note the 'projection' tactic: "sensible gun safety regulations". By using phrases like that you try to box the reader into a position of not being 'sensible' if they do not agree with you. Seems like a coordinated propaganda campaign by the Democrats.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something